Good grief. They went 9-7 and lost in the first round the year after the Super Bowl, then went 8-8, 5-11 in Belichick's first sesaon, and were in the 4th quarter on their way to 0-2 when Bledsoe got hurt. Playoff team with Super Bowl aspirations? Really?

And before anyone goes nuts, no, I'm not in the "Brady completely transformed the team" camp, but let's be realistic about the narrative here. Maybe they do go on to be a Super Bowl caliber team that season if Bledsoe doesn't get hurt. That we'll never know - but there certainly was no evidence to suggest that before he went down.

In the meantime coach Bill Belichick has been trying to upgrade the talent around his quarterback. During the off-season the Patriots brought in 22 free agents, among the highest number in the league and the most in franchise history. Last year New England suffered from below-average talent (running backs, offensive line), nagging injuries to some of its best players (middle linebacker Ted Johnson, defensive end Willie McGinest) and a drop-off in focus and production by a former Pro Bowler (cornerback Ty Law).

Belichick's top draft choice went for a defensive tackle, Richard Seymour. That wasn't a big surprise since defense, after all, is his baby. The Patriots hope that their two gifted rookie tackles, Matt Light and Kenyatta Jones, will be able to step into the starting lineup sometime soon. To keep Bledsoe happy, four free-agent wideouts, all of whom have started at some point, were signed. A running game? The Patriots haven't been in the top half of the league in that department for five years, and there isn't much hope on the horizon.

Don't deliberately try to stretch gladness into a celebration because it retroactively fits your argument that doesn't work because it was based on you jumping to a conclusion you shouldn't have jumped to.

If you don't have a deep threat, how are you throwing the ball down the field with confidence? We're blaming Brady for hitting the open man 8 yards in front of him, rather than forcing something to a covered David Patten 30 yards down the field?

A good QB hits an open man in a window down the field when necessary. All the great ones do it, but I've yet to see Brady toss the deep ball accurately into a tiny window.

You can even look at a guy like Eli Manning and the throw he made to Mario Manningham in the last SB - perfectly accurate when it needed to be. If Brady has that same situation, he probably doesn't even throw the pass because he's too conservative, and if he does, it's probably not accurate.

The same can be said of the Roethlisberger throw to Santonio Homes against the Cardinals even though it was shorter. Brady probably doesn't even attempt it let alone complete that one. It has to be perfect to work and Ben made it happen, but Brady doesn't make those tough throws.

Brady takes and completes little throws or wide open down field strikes. He doesn't throw many INTs because he never tries to hit the small windows, and sometimes you have to do that to win.

Heck, Kurt Warner practically made a career out of hitting the small windows with precision accuracy, and I'd take Warner from the Rams days or the Cardinals SB run over Brady every single time. He hits the necessary throws and actually makes plays to will the team to a win rather than riding the coat tails of a talented team. If Brady was on those Cardinals, there is no way they even make it to that SB with the Steelers unless Fitzgerald did even more than he already did for Warner.

It's interesting that Brady dinks and dunks all the time, yet his yards per catch are higher than Peyton's, who can throw the ball into tight spaces down the field.

That's because Welker and the others get a ton of YAC. *rolls eyes*

Check the numbers. Curtis Martin had 1152 yards in 1997. Antowain Smith had 1157 yards in 2001. Don't try to portray the Patriots as being an empty lineup that Brady somehow transformed. They were already a playoff team with Super Bowl aspirations when he took over.

Agreed 100%. A talented team carried Brady to wins and he gets all the credit.

Posted by moranis on 1/22/2013 11:55:00 AM (view original):Also, Bledsoe did lead New England past the Steelers in the AFC title game after Brady got hurt in the 2nd quarter.

Coming from someone who wants to make sure we know how Brady managed a couple of his Super Bowl wins, let's make sure we establish what "leading New England past the Steelers" means.

He came into the game on the Pitt 40 with a 7-3 lead. He finished off that drive 3-3 for 36 yards and a TD, and he also accounted for the other 4 yards with a a run. Very nice. Then, he goes 7-18 for 66 yards for the rest of the game while the defense turns Kordell Stewart over 4 times, and the special teams scores a TD off a blocked field goal.

Obviously, that's not a whole lot different than the story of Brady's Super Bowl win that year, so I'm not saying that really demonstrates much of anything. And I don't think it's completely out of line to suggest that the Patriots could have turned that season around with Bledsoe - but the notion that because they had been to the Super Bowl 4 years early that they were a "playoff team with Super Bowl aspirations" when Brady took over is just silly. That being said, aside from volume, Brady put up numbers in that first year that were above Bledsoe's career norms and that would compare favorably with any of his best.

but the notion that because they had been to the Super Bowl 4 years early that they were a "playoff team with Super Bowl aspirations" when Brady took over is just silly

Why is it "just silly"?

To think it is "just silly" is to suggest that Brady was the ONLY reason the team won the Super Bowl, which is downright ridiculous.

Just because many of the pundits (including Sports Illustrated, apparently) pegged the team as doing far worse than it did doesn't show anything except the pundits made a mistake and/or the team outperformed what was expected of it.

If the team outperformed its expectations, that certainly isn't bad for the QB, but it does not mean he is the ONLY reason for that happening. In fact, given that Bledsoe wasn't a terrible QB, it is entirely plausible the team would have won the SB with either him or Brady under center.

Remember that in 2008, those same pundits proclaimed the Patriots season as being dead when Brady went down in week 1, and their season was very much alive as they won 11 games and nearly made the playoffs - all with a guy (Matt Cassell) who had never started a single NFL game at QB prior to that.

Brady isn't the be-all and end-all so many analysts, hype machines, and even players make him out to be. If you doubt that, look at the difference in drop off with him gone from his team compared to Peyton Manning gone from his team.

Brady goes down, Pats win 11 games with a literal nobody under center and nearly make the playoffs.

Manning goes down and the Colts are a joke with ZERO chance of seeing the postseason.

That says it all. Like I said before, the difference between Peyton and Brady is so far the light from Peyton would take a million years to reach Brady. Peyton is a difference maker - if Brady is, it's certainly not much of one.

but the notion that because they had been to the Super Bowl 4 years early that they were a "playoff team with Super Bowl aspirations" when Brady took over is just silly

Why is it "just silly"?

To think it is "just silly" is to suggest that Brady was the ONLY reason the team won the Super Bowl, which is downright ridiculous.

Just because many of the pundits (including Sports Illustrated, apparently) pegged the team as doing far worse than it did doesn't show anything except the pundits made a mistake and/or the team outperformed what was expected of it.

If the team outperformed its expectations, that certainly isn't bad for the QB, but it does not mean he is the ONLY reason for that happening. In fact, given that Bledsoe wasn't a terrible QB, it is entirely plausible the team would have won the SB with either him or Brady under center.

Remember that in 2008, those same pundits proclaimed the Patriots season as being dead when Brady went down in week 1, and their season was very much alive as they won 11 games and nearly made the playoffs - all with a guy (Matt Cassell) who had never started a single NFL game at QB prior to that.

Brady isn't the be-all and end-all so many analysts, hype machines, and even players make him out to be. If you doubt that, look at the difference in drop off with him gone from his team compared to Peyton Manning gone from his team.

Brady goes down, Pats win 11 games with a literal nobody under center and nearly make the playoffs.

Manning goes down and the Colts are a joke with ZERO chance of seeing the postseason.

That says it all. Like I said before, the difference between Peyton and Brady is so far the light from Peyton would take a million years to reach Brady. Peyton is a difference maker - if Brady is, it's certainly not much of one.

Why did Bledsoe have the worst years of his career the 2 years prior to Brady taking over, given the incredible talent he had on offense? And what's that incredible talent again? You still haven't shown me.

Posted by moranis on 1/22/2013 11:55:00 AM (view original):Also, Bledsoe did lead New England past the Steelers in the AFC title game after Brady got hurt in the 2nd quarter.

Coming from someone who wants to make sure we know how Brady managed a couple of his Super Bowl wins, let's make sure we establish what "leading New England past the Steelers" means.

He came into the game on the Pitt 40 with a 7-3 lead. He finished off that drive 3-3 for 36 yards and a TD, and he also accounted for the other 4 yards with a a run. Very nice. Then, he goes 7-18 for 66 yards for the rest of the game while the defense turns Kordell Stewart over 4 times, and the special teams scores a TD off a blocked field goal.

Obviously, that's not a whole lot different than the story of Brady's Super Bowl win that year, so I'm not saying that really demonstrates much of anything. And I don't think it's completely out of line to suggest that the Patriots could have turned that season around with Bledsoe - but the notion that because they had been to the Super Bowl 4 years early that they were a "playoff team with Super Bowl aspirations" when Brady took over is just silly. That being said, aside from volume, Brady put up numbers in that first year that were above Bledsoe's career norms and that would compare favorably with any of his best.

Oh I agree. I didn't think they should have won the Superbowl and I think that is what really added to the Brady mystique that year as that team was supposed to be mediocre and the Hoodie was fresh off a 5-11 season after being fired in Cleveland.

I do think in retrospect the fact that Bledsoe was able to win that game by playing the way he did adds to the point that that team was capable of winning with any decent QB under center and that Brady was in fact a game manager.

If you don't have a deep threat, how are you throwing the ball down the field with confidence? We're blaming Brady for hitting the open man 8 yards in front of him, rather than forcing something to a covered David Patten 30 yards down the field?

A good QB hits an open man in a window down the field when necessary. All the great ones do it, but I've yet to see Brady toss the deep ball accurately into a tiny window.

(Here you go - There are a few here. Please find me the ones where he threw the ball inaccurately. www.youtube.com/watch )

You can even look at a guy like Eli Manning and the throw he made to Mario Manningham in the last SB - perfectly accurate when it needed to be. If Brady has that same situation, he probably doesn't even throw the pass because he's too conservative, and if he does, it's probably not accurate. (Yes, you're describing arguably the greatest postseason pass in NFL history. And if you're going to compare the accuracy of Eli Manning favorably to Tom Brady, you really are delusional. Eli is clutch, and I want him over anyone else inside 2 minutes needing a score, but he is not consistently accurate.)

The same can be said of the Roethlisberger throw to Santonio Homes against the Cardinals even though it was shorter. Brady probably doesn't even attempt it let alone complete that one. It has to be perfect to work and Ben made it happen, but Brady doesn't make those tough throws. (Ben is on record of saying the moment the ball left his hand, he regretted throwing it. He thought it would be picked. But yes, excellent throw in a huge spot)

Brady takes and completes little throws or wide open down field strikes. He doesn't throw many INTs because he never tries to hit the small windows, and sometimes you have to do that to win. (Brady wins an insane amount of games. It's funny that the point your making is that he doesn't do enough to win games. He wins year after year in the regular season, and he's 17-7 in the playoffs. You have yet to let me know how he's been carried during his initial 10-0 posteseason stretch, besides mentioning Troy Brown and A. Smith, which I won't accept as an answer.)

Heck, Kurt Warner practically made a career out of hitting the small windows with precision accuracy, and I'd take Warner from the Rams days or the Cardinals SB run over Brady every single time. He hits the necessary throws and actually makes plays to will the team to a win rather than riding the coat tails of a talented team. (Still waiting for you to list the talent. Claiming there's talent over and over and over again doesn't mean it's actually there. That said, Warner was amazing for a while, he's a HOF in my book.) If Brady was on those Cardinals, there is no way they even make it to that SB with the Steelers unless Fitzgerald did even more than he already did for Warner.

It's interesting that Brady dinks and dunks all the time, yet his yards per catch are higher than Peyton's, who can throw the ball into tight spaces down the field.

That's because Welker and the others get a ton of YAC. *rolls eyes* (It's a fair point actually. But enough with this *rolls eyes* bullshit. I was having a conversation with my 16 year old niece this weekend, and she didn't like what I said to her at one point and rolled her eyes at me. I told her that's rude, and it's not something adults do when they're having a conversation. So, stop acting like a 16-year old girl. Also, see the link above for great throws Brady has thrown. And again, it's tough for me to fault Brady for not forcing a 30 yard throw to someone that's not open, rather than take 8 yards and see if he can run after the catch.)

Check the numbers. Curtis Martin had 1152 yards in 1997. Antowain Smith had 1157 yards in 2001. Don't try to portray the Patriots as being an empty lineup that Brady somehow transformed. They were already a playoff team with Super Bowl aspirations when he took over.

Agreed 100%. A talented team carried Brady to wins and he gets all the credit. (Antowain Smith. He should get the credit. OK.)

The only reason this was even a "debate" is because of the rules those who worship Brady must adhere to. If it's any other QB throwing the ball, the receiver NEVER gets blamed and it's all the QB's fault. When it's Brady, there must at minimum be the suggestion he somehow wasn't at fault. In realty that's all BS. The entire fault falls on Brady here.

Dammit burnsy, if you're going to keep quoting bis, I'm going to have to block you as well.

Maybe you should stop blocking people.

The only reason you blocked me is because I dared to defend my own opinions when I disagreed with you.

How dare anyone do that? They're not worthy of your discussion. This is your personal private forum where you tell people what they will think whether they like it or not. It's not like this is a public discussion board or anything. *rolls eyes*